Twitter permanently bans Gay Conservative Milo Yiannopoulos for mocking a Ghostbuster

[PokerGuy]

Sorry, but the right to free speech doesn't include a right to be published by somebody else. Twitter is a private company, they can ban or not ban whoever they see fit to. Don't like it, don't use it.

Thanks captain obvious, for appearing in the nick of time! Oh wait, no, you're arguing a strawman that was tossed since the beginning of the thread. Nobody has argued twitter should be forced by law to let him tweet, or that he has some right to do so. They have a right to ban him, we have a right to call them out on their hypocritical bs.

I'd also be curious if you'd use the same logic when other businesses want to refuse service to someone who's views they don't like. ("don't like it, don't use it")

 

[WelshBloke]

They have a right to ban him, we have a right to call them out on their hypocritical bs.

What hypocritical BS?

They believed that his actions were harming their business so they booted him.

 

[michal1980]

What hypocritical BS?

They believed that his actions were harming their business so they booted him.

that they tend to ban people only on the right side of the political spectrum.

 

[glenn1]

The reason I made you search for it is because it requires the bare minimum of reading & effort necessary to form some kind of coherent opinion.

The kind of effort for example that would see more people figure out why he was banned, or what harassment means.



I recall asking for a coherent narrative to your userbase argument, which frankly isn't a lot to ask. Why should anyone entertain "challenges" from a complete fucking joke?

More like you're behaving like the Benghazi people and think that if you 'make us research it' that we'll use the same kind of motivated reasoning as you to reach the conclusion you did. As much as you want to believe otherwise, to say that Milo was harassing given the information presented to date requires a lot of mental "filling in the gaps" to make that case. As I've repeatedly said, what he did was not harassment. What his followers might have done is completely irrelevant unless he directly encouraged them and there is no evidence of that either.

Unless and until new evidence is presented the contention that Milo himself engaged in harassment in this instance is nothing but thinking it should be true because he can be an asshole.

 

[Bitek]

that they tend to ban people only on the right side of the political spectrum.

Unrepentant assholes tend to get booted so...


Sorta like the permabans here. Both sides get it, but not at the same rates

 

[WelshBloke]

that they tend to ban people only on the right side of the political spectrum.

But thats a different subject entirely.

This guy was booted for being a disruptive troll not because he was right wing.

 

[Vic]

Thanks captain obvious, for appearing in the nick of time! Oh wait, no, you're arguing a strawman that was tossed since the beginning of the thread. Nobody has argued twitter should be forced by law to let him tweet, or that he has some right to do so. They have a right to ban him, we have a right to call them out on their hypocritical bs.

I'd also be curious if you'd use the same logic when other businesses want to refuse service to someone who's views they don't like. ("don't like it, don't use it")

There is a difference between "we don't serve your kind here" and showing a disruptive customer to the door.

 

[michal1980]

But thats a different subject entirely.

This guy was booted for being a disruptive troll not because he was right wing.

your only half right.

It was because we was a troll AND right wing.

Thats the combination twitter doesnt allow.

 

[Artdeco]

I followed the guy for a couple of days out of curiosity, it was pretty bad.

Maybe Brietbart can start up it's own Twitter like service to cater to hell raisers.

 

[glenn1]

I followed the guy for a couple of days out of curiosity, it was pretty bad.

Maybe Brietbart can start up it's own Twitter like service to cater to hell raisers.

If Twitter was to be honest and make the argument that they booted him because he's disruptive or detracts from their "decorum" I could respect that. But don't falsely claim harassment when it's not in evidence.

 

[WelshBloke]

your only half right.

It was because we was a troll AND right wing.

Thats the combination twitter doesnt allow.

No.

He was a troll and he was disrupting their business. That's why he got kicked.

 

[PokerGuy]

What hypocritical BS?

They believed that his actions were harming their business so they booted him.

Banning certain people (conservatives) for supposedly violating their terms of service while not banning others who engage in equally bad or worse behavior. It just reflects the twitter political bias -- they are entitled to it, but just go ahead and own it then, don't pretend otherwise.

 

[PokerGuy]

There is a difference between "we don't serve your kind here" and showing a disruptive customer to the door.

Only if by "disruptive" you mean "holds a different political belief than we do". Again, it's been shown umpteen times that others don't get banned when doing far worse things than him, so the "disruptive" argument doesn't hold water. The difference is that the other "disruptive" trolls are lefties so they are tolerated. He's a righty, so they booted him.

 

[WelshBloke]

Banning certain people (conservatives) for supposedly violating their terms of service while not banning others who engage in equally bad or worse behavior. It just reflects the twitter political bias -- they are entitled to it, but just go ahead and own it then, don't pretend otherwise.

Is there a lefty on twitter that's causing the same sort of damage to their business?

 

[PokerGuy]

No.

He was a troll and he was disrupting their business. That's why he got kicked.

No, by simple logic that does not hold water. If being disruptive was the cause, then other people who do much worse things would also have been banned.... but that hasn't been the case, so we know being "disruptive" or violating the TOS is not the primary driver, no matter how much twitter would like to pretend otherwise.

 

[PokerGuy]

Is there a lefty on twitter that's causing the same sort of damage to their business?

Define causing damage to their business. They specifically said he was booted for violating terms of service, not causing damage to their business. If they boot him for violating terms of service, why not all the others who violate terms of service?

I guess if they consider tweeting conservative things damaging to their business, then yes, he's more damaging than some of the other trolls. If that's the case, then they should just own it and stop lying and being hypocrites. Just say "we don't want conservatives using our service". Done.

 

[fskimospy]

Banning certain people (conservatives) for supposedly violating their terms of service while not banning others who engage in equally bad or worse behavior. It just reflects the twitter political bias -- they are entitled to it, but just go ahead and own it then, don't pretend otherwise.

Is there any kind of objective analysis that shows this?

 

[PokerGuy]

Is there any kind of objective analysis that shows this?

Obviously nobody can do a comprehensive objective review of all this because only twitter has the information.

There are, however, plenty specific examples of egregious behavior by tweeters that were not sanctioned, while conservatives (including trolls like Milo) are suspended or shadowbanned at the drop of a hat.

 

[fskimospy]

Obviously nobody can do a comprehensive objective review of all this because only twitter has the information.

There are, however, plenty specific examples of egregious behavior by tweeters that were not sanctioned, while conservatives (including trolls like Milo) are suspended or shadowbanned at the drop of a hat.

So really then you're saying we have absolutely no idea if they are banning or silencing conservatives at a different rate than liberals? This is all just anecdotal evidence which clearly isn't useful in determining trends for a service with 320 million users. The accusations of bias are pretty much baseless.

 

[WelshBloke]

Define causing damage to their business.

I'm sure that you could work that out for yourself.

But I guess that causing popular celebrities to leave the platform or making it a toxic environment would count.

 

[thraashman]

Conservative logic.
Company doesn't want to do business with someone for the heinous act of being homosexual: OK.
Company doesn't want to do business with someone for harassing other customers: VIOLATING FREE SPEECH!!!

 

[Sonikku]

I'm guessing if it were liberals getting banned on twitter than conservatives would be rushing to its defense highlighting a business's right to terminate any person or any account for any reason. Or no reason. You'd get the feeling that rights were being violated to hear the spiel.

 

[PokerGuy]

So really then you're saying we have absolutely no idea if they are banning or silencing conservatives at a different rate than liberals? This is all just anecdotal evidence which clearly isn't useful in determining trends for a service with 320 million users. The accusations of bias are pretty much baseless.

You can call them anecdotal if you'd like, and if you'd like to believe that it's all just baseless accusations because it fits your liberal world view, have at it. The fact is, there are scores of specific examples of tweets that are far worse than anything Milo has tweeted -- and those accounts are still active despite complaints. That simply cannot be explained away with the waive of a hand and saying "baseless".

 

[PokerGuy]

But I guess that causing popular celebrities to leave the platform or making it a toxic environment would count.

Oh, you mean like advocating for the gang rape of celebrity like Palin? Oh wait, that was not grounds enough for any action.

Does the term "double standard" mean anything to you?

 

[fskimospy]

You can call them anecdotal if you'd like, and if you'd like to believe that it's all just baseless accusations because it fits your liberal world view, have at it. The fact is, there are scores of specific examples of tweets that are far worse than anything Milo has tweeted -- and those accounts are still active despite complaints. That simply cannot be explained away with the waive of a hand and saying "baseless".

It fits my world view of requiring real evidence before making statements of bias. Anecdotal evidence is by definition one person's story. Unless you actually look at who twitter bans and who they don't in a systematic way there's no way to know if your accusations are true with even a small amount of certainty.

What's happening here is exactly what you're complaining about. You're taking small amounts of evidence that fit with your worldview and deciding that they mean something. They don't.